Having gotten that off of my chest, I do think it's more likely than not that human activity has and will continue to affect the climate until we manage to kill ourselves off or until we get blasted by a big-ass asteroid. However, I'd submit that we're just going to have to deal with it. With an unruly population of 7 Billion, ranging from bejeweled one-percenters to dudes who think a mud hut is living large, it's unlikely that we'll ever arrive at a workable and enforceable global approach to optimizing the climate. And, I'm not at all confident that anyone--even guys as smart as Fernando Belair--know how you would do that.

So, in a nutshell, we are either screwed or we are not. I do believe that there's a great deal to recommend the notion of trying to keep the Earth as healthy a place as we can for those of us who reside here. I don't think, however, anyone really grasps how to do that.

Great summary! But probably not enough to stop the thread in its tracks....

I don't think anyone really grasps how to do that because there IS no way to do that. While I accept the current science (until I see compelling evidence to the contrary) that climate change, human caused, is occurring, there is no solution. We can "act locally, think globally" (and I do) all we want, but the real problem is population. We have become too many, and must rely more and more on destructive means of providing for ourselves. In addition, or as a corollary, we more and more and more and more are rising up the living standard/consumption ladder. I can't fault the Chinese family which wants a fridge, a motorbike, a car, etc, but I can see, from the scientific evidence available, that the result of all those rising humans will be, well, catastrophe, for the planet for the species, for many other species.

The term "tipping point" is often tossed about in discussions such as this; I think we long ago reached the tipping point for the planet, due simply to the bursting population. One might easily look back at the last 130 years or so and say that medical science has inadvertently caused the future destruction of the species, with the longer lives, lower mortality rates, on and on. Moral questions enter the picture, and, well, to quote a great American, "I don't think...anyone really grasps how to [fix it]."

Now children. Why is there a debate? I personally don't give a tinkers damn what or who is causing the warming or that it is warming or what shoreline will be under water or what ice berg is melting. You can see those things so why argue about it? You can see the air pollution on the horizon. We can stop it. You can smell it it the air. We can stop it. You can see the water pollution. We can stop it. You can smell it and feel it. We can stop it. It may not be where you live but it is where someone lives. Stop it. The causes of air and water pollution are under human control. Stop it. If you want clean air and clean water you will have to do the thing that stops it. The you becomes the we. The we becomes governments. So now is our chance. Do something to stop it today because tomorrow it will cost more to cleanse the mistake of taking a big dump on our environment. Back to your predictable and regularly scheduled argument.

_________________________
JoeNorCal Meets SoCal in the Middle 2015 is April 24-26.

Maybe I'm just leary of the government's willingness to jump in, create an overreaching bureaucracy, and keep increasing the expenses until it becomes an unsustainable burden on the population. I'm thinking here of TSA's War on Terrorism, War on Poverty, War on Drugs. I imagine they'd love a War on Climate Change.

----

_________________________
Maybe a chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs.

I view the climate change claims with at least a bit of skepticism, since, like many here, I clearly recall the predictions of an imminent ice age not more than a few decades ago. ...

A small fraction of scientific papers of the time predicted cooling, but the media inflated the story. The cooling that was reported was based on... air pollution, primarily of particulates that reflected sunlight, which we cleaned up.

Quote:

Whenever I see the attacks on skeptics--whether they're scientists with impressive credentials or moderators on a motorcycle discussion board--I'm reminded of the Church's persecution of Galileo, who dared to challenge the religio-scientific view of the Universe that was the only acceptable viewpoint at the time of his discoveries.

Mike, given the predicted consequences of global warming, if there were such a "Galileo" who could present valid science showing the others were wrong, he would be hailed as a hero. Nobody has produced such evidence.

Whenever I see the attacks on skeptics--whether they're scientists with impressive credentials or moderators on a motorcycle discussion board--I'm reminded of the Church's persecution of Galileo, who dared to challenge the religio-scientific view of the Universe that was the only acceptable viewpoint at the time of his discoveries.

Mike, I think I understand (and appreciate) your point but I must take a serious exception to your analogy, which in my opinion is exactly opposite of the case here. The Church persecuted Galileo (and many others, sadly) for daring to shine the light of scientific fact and objective proof on religious dogma. That obviously puts Galileo in this analogy as the source of fact, and the Church as the source of myth. No problem so far.

But here you have placed an analogy placing skeptics of Climate Change - who are overwhelmingly comprised of political pundits, commentators, lecturers, and other non-scientists - as the source of fact, and actual scientists (the overwhelming number of which believe in climate change and sign their names to such studies, letters, and published documents to that effect) as the source of myth.

As I mentioned earlier, the main frustration as I see it on the side of Climate Change "believers" is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in its support for the theory, and yet skeptics remain skeptical not based on some evidence or objective proof, but usually from an ideological, historical, or political objection to the theory. As such, I would say in this specific instance, the skeptics are the Church, clinging fast to dogma, politics, and a world view that cannot tolerate any acceptance of inconvenient facts. And the scientists were - and are - Galileo.

That said I retain some skeptism myself, but I am unable to express myself as well as Coarsegoldkid, whose prior post summed up my feelings perfectly. I challenge anyone here to argue with his post using facts or reason. I believe anyone who tries will fall woefully short of making a convincing case.

A compilation of excerpts of somewhere around 1,000 scientists who question the popular notions of the causes of climate change can be found here, including many links to the full dissenting papers and articles. It's beyond my meager ability to summarize what is already summarized in these 300-plus pages, but it questions a number of assertions, including the basic premise that the majority of scientists are in concurrence.

These dissenters range from paleontologists who claim that the proponents of the theory have misread geological data to physicists and climatologists who assert that the physical effects of CO on atmospheric processes are fundamentally flawed, misrepresenting well established principles of physics.

I dunno. . . I try to retain an open mind in issues of science. But when I see this many individuals with scientific credentials in relevant fields of study credibly asserting that the debate is being manipulated for financial and political gain--and emphatically stating that the science is wrong--it leads me to question not only the certitude of the prosthelytizers, but to wonder if it isn't largely a convenient fabrication to rationalize a social agenda. I combine that with clear proof that inconvenient findings have been intentionally suppressed, and my spidey sense becomes heightened to the possibility of outright fraud.

Of course, I recognize that this particular summary might be criticized or that individual statements therein might be attacked, but anyone with a modicum of motivation to learn about both sides of this debate can easily find numerous credible sources casting serious doubt on the "truth" as it is currently portrayed by adherents to the popular theory du jour.

There is, indeed, a credible body of dissenting scientific opinion, as well as clear proof of repeated misrepresentations and suppression of troublesome findings by the proponents of the theory. To suggest otherwise simply ignores logic and reason.

If we are to base sweeping changes to society on scientific principles, why are so many afraid to examine the full body of scientific knowledge and opinion? It seems to me that this attitude belies an unwillingness to discover facts that might prove them wrong, derailing their agenda.

Well some of you will be happy to know that the 22 million polluters of Australia will shortly be paying a carbon tax to save the rest of you. I need someone to explain to me how this is going to effect "climate change" when the rest of you are basically doing nothing?

A compilation of excerpts of somewhere around 1,000 scientists who question the popular notions of the causes of climate change can be found here, including many links to the full dissenting papers and articles. It's beyond my meager ability to summarize what is already summarized in these 300-plus pages, but it questions a number of assertions, including the basic premise that the majority of scientists are in concurrence.

Mike, you will note several times (at least in my posts) I requested scientific evidence offered forth by actual working scientists from actual scientific institutions that are not funded by industry. I dunno about you, but common sense tells me that if industry signs my paycheck, my results might get a little skewed. Just a little!

The link you sent to "Climate Depot" is one such example.

"ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities.

Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano."

Again, you can ignore this and choose to believe that getting hundreds of thousands of dollars does not skew an organization's agenda. And that's fine. But part of your argument was that the world's scientists - the majority of them as documented by any credible paper on the subject - are in a cartel designed to make profit and hold the world hostage to some radical social agenda. OK, fine. But please remember, that sword cuts both ways. So I ask you: Exxonmobile doesn't have an agenda? You do remember the Valdez don't you? No agenda here, right?

I picked out one of innumerable sources portraying the arguments from the from the contrary perspective. But, even if you assume institutional bias, I'd suggest that it's unlikely that each of the 1,000 dissenters is in the pocket of some person or organization paying for the desired outcome.

Nonetheless, in examining the issue it is worthwhile to examine the motivations and efficacy of proponents of either viewpoint. Money is to be made either way and other non-monetary agendas are being championed under the guise of being a "believer" or a "skeptic." I think the best approach to reaching a personal conclusion is not to dismiss either viewpoint out of hand--a natural propensity we all have--but to try to examine as much relevant evidence as we can from both sides of the spectrum. People are generally unwilling to do so, and rely instead on vast simplification from media sources, emotion, or adherence to ideological principles that mandate a certain way of thinking. Hence, my return to the Science of Religion, wherein heretics are dismissed out of hand without examination of the underlying merit of their assertions. I'd guess that 99% of those who are strict adherents to either viewpoint have no idea of the scientific arguments for or against the proposition that human CO output is the principal agent behind global warming in the modern era.